Historicist

[Me Died Blue]

http://www.historicist.com/

This is an interesting site talking about the origins of the Historicist position, and the little-known role Isaac Newton played in its development, as well as some articles defending it theologically.

 

[Me Died Blue]

Any thoughts on the site? Is it accurate?

 

[VirginiaHuguenot]

I personally have found the site useful. However, I prefer this site. The latter site explains much about the origins of futurism and preterism, as well as the Reformation consensus on historicism. I think Isaac Newton is given too much credit on the former site. I have respect for his writings and his genius, but I am also aware of his Masonic beliefs, and I don't view him as the best defender of orthodoxy.

 

[turmeric]

I want a site for Idealists!:bigsmile:

 

[Theogenes]

Try this site as well: http://www.historicism.com/index.htm

Before I became Reformed I was a Dispensational Premill. After I became Reformed I became a Preterist. But a few years ago I started to study the Historicist position, which used to be called THE Protestant method of interpreting prophecy and I've became convinced that it is true. I was amazed at how the pre-Reformers, the Reformers, The Puritans, and others in that stream, all held that view and that it was primarliy lost because of the Jesuit's Counter-Reformation theories of Futurism (the Dispensational-Premill view) and Preterism.
Jim

 

[BobVigneault]

I do have some difficulty with the preterist early dating of the Revelation but I find preterism to hard to leave. It makes for a nice neat explanation of the strange images.

Bottom line for me is that the first century church has to be the intended audience and the ones who would most benefit and be blessed from reading of 'these things that will soon take place'.

I can understand the reformers taking up the historicist view given the persecution they were enduring from the papacy, it must have 'felt' like the end of times, but I just don't see the pope's relevance to the first century church and the original hearers of John's writings.

 

[WrittenFromUtopia]

The Pope is anti-Christian but not the Anti-Christ(s). They were already alive and well in the first century, according to Scripture.

 

[Theogenes]

I encourage you to read J.A. Wylie's essay, "The Papacy is Antichrist",
http://www.historicism.net/readingmaterials/thepapacy.pdf
It's an excellent essay from the Historicist position. I find his agrument very compelling.
Jim

 

[RamistThomist]

Not really,
Most historicists are postmillennial (there are exceptions). Many idealists are amillennial (exception being RJ Rushdoony; I find it humouros that many people who are most nervous about Rush share the same hermenuetic as him. Many preterists are postmillennial (Jay Adams excepted).

There is really no hard and fast rule connecting hermeneutics with millennial positions (except futurism = premillennialism).

What is really funny is when people start saying that partial preterism = federal visionism. That's called "playing connect the dots."

 

[doulosChristou]

Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia
The Pope is anti-Christian but not the Anti-Christ(s). They were already alive and well in the first century, according to Scripture.

The mystery of lawlessness was already at work, in his time to be revealed according to 2 Thes. 2:6-7. The spirit of antichrist which was to come, according to 1 John 4:3, was already in the world. The Roman office of the papacy (Pontifex Maximus) was alive and well in the first century and indeed even before the time of Christ. Julius Caesar held that office before becoming Emperor. Much of the structure of the pagan Roman Empire carried over into the holy Roman Empire following Emperor Constintine's conversion, including the office of Pontifex Maximus which continues to this day.

 

[Theogenes]

Some Historicists are "Historic Premillenialists" not to be confused with Dispensational Premill. for example, H.G. Guinness. See http://www.historicism.com/index.htm
And with a name like Guinness, he must be right!!
Jim

 

[RamistThomist]

orthodox preterism has many of the first-century time referents applying to the first century. Events like the second coming, etc. are still in the future.

The reason that many are postmillennial is that many of the negative passages refer to the first century. This puts church in a position where she can conquer the world for Christ. Who is to hold her back. Phrases like the "present evil age" refer, as I see it, to the destruction of the jewish typological order in AD 70.

[Edited on 7--27-05 by Draught Horse]

 

[doulosChristou]

Originally posted by joshua
I'm confused further. I've always associated Preterism with Postmillenialism. Help me out. Give me a definition fo Preterism.

Josh,

Postmillennialism, Amillennialism, and Premillennialism all have to do with millennial views only. Preterism, Historicism, Futurism, and Idealism all have to do with overall eschatalogical views, especially one's overall approach to Revelation. The Preterist says Revelation was all mostly fulfilled by 70AD. The Historicist says Revelation is being fulfilled throughout church history. The Futurist says that all of it will be fulfilled in the future. The Idealist says that it should be viewed as allegory rather than prophesy. As it touches on the doctrine of Antichrist, the Preterist says the Antichrist was Nero; the Historicist, the Papacy; the Futurist, some future person at the end of history.

dC

 

[Puritanhead]

Originally posted by turmeric
I want a site for Idealists!:bigsmile:

 

[doulosChristou]

Originally posted by joshua

Originally posted by doulosChristou

Originally posted by joshua
I'm confused further. I've always associated Preterism with Postmillenialism. Help me out. Give me a definition fo Preterism.

Josh,

Postmillennialism, Amillennialism, and Premillennialism all have to do with millennial views only. Preterism, Historicism, Futurism, and Idealism all have to do with overall eschatalogical views, especially one's overall approach to Revelation. The Preterist says Revelation was all mostly fulfilled by 70AD. The Historicist says Revelation is being fulfilled throughout church history. The Futurist says that all of it will be fulfilled in the future. The Idealist says that it should be viewed as allegory rather than prophesy. As it touches on the doctrine of Antichrist, the Preterist says the Antichrist was Nero; the Historicist, the Papacy; the Futurist, some future person at the end of history.

dC

Thanks, Greg. So...the Puritans were largely Historicists, no? Ian Paisley, Historicist?

Yes, sir.

 

[RamistThomist]

Originally posted by joshua

Originally posted by Jacob
orthodox preterism has many of the first-century time referents applying to the first century.

Right...as would Postmillenialism, right?

Yes, but...
I call partial pret postmillennials "New wave postmillennialists." The more classic brand of postmillennialism usually had historicists in it.

 

[WrittenFromUtopia]

Classic Postmil -> Historicist Postmil
"Modern" Postmil -> Preterist/Theonomic Postmil
Amil -> Historicist, Preterist, etc.
Premil -> Futurist

 

[Peter]

Yes. The puritans were Postmillennial Historicist. That is, they believed Christ's kingdom would culminate with the millennium, a golden age when the earth will be filled with knowledge of the Lord as water covers the sea, all nations kiss the son, and swords will be beaten into plowshares, followed by the Return of Christ and the consumation of all things (Postmillennialism). They also believed that predictive prophecy spans all of history not just a short period of time from the ascension to the destruction of jerusalem or the events immediately leading up to the second coming. They believed in a 1260 year (42 months) apostacy by consistently applying the day/year principle in prophecy, understood the papacy to be the man of sin and antichrist, and the 5th trumpet to refer to the Mohammedan invasions. (Historicism)

Please see http://historicism.net/

 

[WrittenFromUtopia]

Originally posted by joshua
Thanks, Peter. So the majority of Puritans were NOT Amil? Why did I think that?

Dirty Amils and their lies!!!!!!!!

 

[RamistThomist]

Originally posted by joshua
Thanks, Peter. So the majority of Puritans were NOT Amil? Why did I think that?

One of the best books I have ever read with regard to prophecy is Iain Murray's The Puritan Hope.

Seek your answers there

 

[Peter]

Yes. Overwhelmingly. There's an entire book about it (that i have not read) by Ian Murray: "The Puritan Hope"

[Edited on 7-27-2005 by Peter]

[Edited on 7-27-2005 by Peter]

 

[VirginiaHuguenot]

Iain Murray's The Puritan Hope

 

[RamistThomist]

Not only does it proclaim the victory of King Jesus before the culmination of history, it is written with a rare, spiritual fervor that few can match.

 

[turmeric]

Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia

Originally posted by joshua
Thanks, Peter. So the majority of Puritans were NOT Amil? Why did I think that?

Dirty Amils and their lies!!!!!!!!

 

[doulosChristou]

Originally posted by Jim Snyder
I encourage you to read J.A. Wylie's essay, "The Papacy is Antichrist",
http://www.historicism.net/readingmaterials/thepapacy.pdf
It's an excellent essay from the Historicist position. I find his agrument very compelling.
Jim

I love Wylie. Even better, in my opinion, is Turretin. He proves that the Pope of Rome is the Antichrist. To my knowledge, no one has attempted a refutation.

http://www.iconbusters.com/iconbusters/works-turretin.htm

 

[WrittenFromUtopia]

I have that article by Turretin saved and need to read it. He is my fellow Italian brother in Christ ... I guess I should give it a read. Plus, I love his Institutes.

[Edited on 7-29-2005 by WrittenFromUtopia]

 

[Theogenes]

Gregory,
I have Turretin's Disputation from Rand Winburn. I agree it's an excellent argument and impossible to dismiss. I'm amazed with all the interest in Turretin with his 3 vol. Syst. Theo. being published a number of years ago that this disputation is virtually unknown to most Reformed people. Makes you wonder if there's not a Jesuit conspiracy afoot Have you read Samuel Cassels "Christ and Antichrist"?? It's another excellent book and argument. How about Guinness' "Romanism and the Reformation"? Or any other of Guinness' books??
Jim

 

[JM]

Originally posted by doulosChristou

Originally posted by Jim Snyder
I encourage you to read J.A. Wylie's essay, "The Papacy is Antichrist",
http://www.historicism.net/readingmaterials/thepapacy.pdf
It's an excellent essay from the Historicist position. I find his agrument very compelling.
Jim

I love Wylie. Even better, in my opinion, is Turretin. He proves that the Pope of Rome is the Antichrist. To my knowledge, no one has attempted a refutation.

http://www.iconbusters.com/iconbusters/works-turretin.htm

Hey brother, do you have the title of Turretin's work, the link is broke and I'd like to google it up if I could.

peace,

 

[Peter]

Turretin's Seventh Disputation, where it is proven that the Papacy is the Antichrist

 

[Kaalvenist]

Turretin was an Amil Historicist. Like myself.